Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 213; 57(4) : 425 431 A Comparative In Vitro Study of Cephalosporin/Beta-Lactamase Inhibitor 425 Original Article A comparative in vitro study of Cephalosporin/Beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations against Gram negative bacilli Susan M. 1, Hariharan T.S. 1 and Sonya J. 2 Departments of Pharmacology 1 and Microbiology 2, MOSC Medical college, Kolenchery, Kochi, kerala, India Abstract The present study aims at comparing the in-vitro susceptibility of six commercially available cephalosporin BLI combinations with cephalosporins alone against hospital isolates of Gram negative bacilli. Gram negative bacilli, numbering 5, isolated from various clinical samples, were included in the study. The isolates were also screened for ESBL production by the methods recommended by CLSI. Susceptibility pattern of six Cephalosporins/ Betalactamase inhibitor (BLI) combinations were compared with their partner cephalosporins. Overall, 29.6% of Gram negative bacilli were susceptible to the five Cephalosporins (III rd & IV th gen); the highest activity being shown by cefepime. Susceptibility was much higher (more than double) to the Cephalosporin combinations containing Tazobactam (TZB) & sulbactam (SLB) (62.7%). However such enhanced susceptibility was completely lacking with combinations containing clavulanate (29.1%). Gram negative bacilli, as a group, exhibited very high resistance to the new cephalosporins (III rd & IV th gen). When these agents were tested as fixed-dose combinations with TZB & SLB, the overall susceptibility was enhanced by more than 1%. Such an enhancement was absent with clavulanate combinations. Cefepime/TZB revealed the highest activity against ESBL producing GNB. Further studies are needed in the clinical settings as they can play an important role as good alternatives to carbapenems. INTRODUCTION Indiscriminate use of third & fourth generation cephalosporins during the last decade has led to the development of widespread resistance to these agents among Gram negative bacilli (GNB) (1). Since betalactamase production is the major mechanism of resistance to the betalactam agents, their use in combination with BLI s provides a logical & effective measure to counter this problem. Four combinations of various Penicillins with Beta-lactamase inhibitors (BLI) were introduced during 1982-9, all of which have been established as very valuable agents in *Corresponding author : Dr. T.S. Hariharan, Professor of Pharmacology MOSC Medical College, Kolenchery, Kerala, E-mail : hharants@gmail.com (received on March 12, 213) the management of serious infections. The situation is, however, different with cephalosporins. While Cefoperazone-Sulbactam is one fixed-dose combination approved for use in many European countries, such combinations have not yet been approved for use in the U.S or U.K or other developed countries (2). At the same time, many cephalosporin - BLI combinations are readily available in the Indian market, but very few in-vitro studies are available regarding their superiority over their partner cefalosporins (2). Also, studies have shown that the same betalactam combined with different BLIs have differential efficacy against Enterobactericiae (3). The present study aims at comparing the in-vitro susceptibility of six commercially available cephalosporin BLI combinations with cephalosporins alone against hospital isolates of Gram negative bacilli.
426 Susan/Hariharan/Sonya Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 213; 57(4) Materials and Methods Antibiotic sensitivity discs : The following discs from HiMedia, Mumbai, were used for sensitivity testing : Cephalosporin discs (plain) : 1. Cefepime (3 mcg) 2. Cefoperazone (75 mcg) 3. Cefotaxime (3 mcg) 4. Cefixime (5 mcg) 5. Ceftriaxone (3 mcg) Cephalosporin BLI combination discs : 1. Cefepime Tazobactam (8/1) 2. Ceftriaxone Sulbactam (3/15) 3. Cefotaxime Clavulanic acid (3/1) 4. Ceftriaxone Tazobactam (3/1) 5. Cefoperazone Sulbactam (75/3) 6. Cefixime Clavulanic Acid (5/1) Methodology Biological samples obtained from patients admitted to the MOSC Medical college hospital, Kolenchery, Kochi, Kerala were used for the study. Isolation and identification of bacterial pathogens were performed according to standard microbiological techniques. [4] All isolates of Gram negative bacilli were included in the study. Susceptibility testing was performed on Mueller- Hinton Agar plates (Hi Media, Mumbai) by the disc diffusion method as per CLSI (formerly NCCLS) guidelines. The diameters of the zones of inhibition of growth were expressed as sensitive or resistant based on CLSI guidelines (5). Moderately sensitive strains were considered resistant. Testing for ESBL production : Each isolate of Gram negative bacilli was considered a potential ESBL producer, if the zones of inhibition in the disc diffusion tests were as follows : cefotaxime < 27 mm, ceftriaxone < 25 mm, ceftazidime < 22 mm & cefpodoxime < 3 mm. For disc diffusion testing, a > 5 mm increase in a zone diameter for either antimicrobial agent tested in combination with clavulanic acid versus its zone when tested alone confirms an ESBL producing organism. Escherichia.coli ATCC 25922 (ESBL negative) & Klebsiella pneumoniae ATCC 763 (ESBL positive) strains were used as control (5). The performance & interpretation of the tests were done as per CLSI guidelines. Results Cefalosporins alone : A total of 5 isolates of GNB obtained from biological samples were included in the study. E.coli constituted > 5% of the organisms; K.pneumoniae, Ps. Aeruginosa and A.boumanii together accounted for another % (Fig. 1). On an average, 3% of gm negative bacilli were susceptible to the five cefalosporins. Cefepime exhibited the highest activity (34.2%), followed by cefotaxime and ceftriaxone (29.6%) (Fig. 2). 13% Fig. 1 : 12% 14% 4% 2% 55% E.coli Klebs Pseudo Acineto Citro Enterob Percentage of Gm ve isolates from clinical samples. Combinations with TZB and SLB : Fig. 3 shows the comparative activities of the three BLI combinations with cefalosporins. Substantially enhanced activity against gm negative bacilli was
Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 213; 57(4) A Comparative In Vitro Study of Cephalosporin/Beta-Lactamase Inhibitor 427 35 3 25 2 15 8 7 6 5 cefalosp cef / BLI 1 5 CPM CTX CTR CPZ CFM 3 2 1 Fig. 2 : Comparative overall suceptibility (%) of Cefalosporins against gm ve bacilli CPM cefepime, CTX cefotaxime, CTR ceftriaxone, CPZ cefoperazone, CFM cefixime. demonstrated by sulbactam (SLB) and tazobactam (TZB) combinations, TZB being superior to those with SLB (66.8% and 58.6% respectively) (Fig. 4). Enhanced activity with the combinations was expressed mostly against E.coli, K.pneumoniae, A.boumanii and Ps.aeruginosa, and this was statistically significant. Among the two BLI combinations involving ceftriaxone too, the one with TZB was superior to SLB combination (63.4% to 58%) (Table I). Ps.aeruginosa exhibited a difference in being more susceptible to SLB combinations rather than the combination with TZB, but this was not statistically significant. Fig. 3 : 8 7 6 5 3 2 CPM/CPT CTR/CIT CTR/CIS CPZ/CFS CTX/CEC CFM/CMC Susceptibility pattern (%) of cefalosporins vs BLI combns. CPM cefepime, CPT cefepime / TZB, CTR ceftriaxone, CIT ceftriaxone / TZB, CIS ceftriaxone / SLB, CPZ cefoperazone, CFS cefoperazone / SLB, CTX cefotaxime, CEC cefotaxime / CLV, CFM cefixime, CMC cefixime / CLV Cephalosporin Clavulanate combinations : In contrast to the other two, the cephalosporin combinations involving clavulanate (CLV) did not show any significant increase in activity against GNB (Fig. 3). 1 Fig. 4 : CEF / TZB CEF / SLB CEF CEF / BLI Comparative overall susceptibility of Tazobactam and Sulbactam comibanations. CEF/TZB cefalaosporin/tzb, CEF/SLB cephalosporin/slb TABLE I : Comparative susceptibility (%) of Cephalosporins and Cephalosporin/ BLI Combinations. Organism CPM CPT CTR CIT CIS CPZ CFS CTX CEC CFM CMC All bacilli 34.2 7.2 29.4 63.4 58. 27.4 59.4 29.8 3.6 28.4 29.8 E.coli 38.6 86.9* 34.1 8.9* 72.3 3.3 72.7* 35.2 35.2 31.1 33. Kleb.pneu 27.1 67.1* 25.7 62.9* 48.6 25.7 51.4* 24.3 24.3 25.7 25.7 Ps. Aeru. 44.8 55.2 37.3 43.3 49.3 37.3 61.2 35.8 44.8 38.8 44.8 Acineto. 9.7 25.8 3.2 16.1 19.4 3.2 19.4 4.8 1.6 4.8 3.2 Citro. 27.3 5. 22.4.9 36.4 22.4 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 Entero. 5. 6.. 7. 7.. 6. 3. 3.. 3. CPM C cefepime, CPT C cefepime/tzb, CTR C ceftriaxone, CIT C ceftriaxone/tzb, CIS C ceftriaxone/slb, CPZ C cefoperazone, CFS C cefoperazone/slb, CTX C cefotaxime, CEC C cefotaxime/clv, CFM C cefixime, CMC C cefixime/ CLV. *P<.5 compared to cefalosporins alone.
428 Susan/Hariharan/Sonya Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 213; 57(4) TABLE II : In vitro activity of Cephalosporin - BLI combinations against ESBL positive organisms. Organism Total ESBL No (%) of organisms susceptible No (%) of organisms no positive resistant to all CPT CIT CIS CFS CEC CMC combinations All Gm ve bacilli 5 339 (68) 248 (73) 23 (59) 175 (51) 172 (5) 2 (.5) 91 (26) E.coli 267 171 (64) 134 (78) 12 (7) 99 (58) 12 (6) 2 (1) 37 (21) Kleb.pneu 7 51 (73) 3 (59) 27 (53) 17 (33) 2 (39) 21 (41) Ps. Aeru. 67 34 (48) 1 (29) 8 (24) 9 (26) 1 (29) 24 (71) Acineto. 62 58 (94) 13 (22) 8 (14) 9 (16) 1 (17) 45 (83) Citro. 22 16 (73) 5 (31) 2 (13) 2 (13) 2 (13) 11 (69) Entero. 1 7 (7) 2 (29) 2 (29) 2 (29) 1 (14) 5 (71) 1 8 6 ESBL--ve ESBL+ve 2 total e.coli kleb pseud acin citro entero Fig. 5 : Percentage of ESBL positive organisms in clinical samples. ESBL production among GNB : On the whole, 67.8% of gm negative bacilli were found to be ESBL producers whereas 94% of Acinetobacter strains were ESBL positive, the property was seen in only 5.7% of pseudomonas; for others it was in the range of 64 to 73% (Fig. 5). Susceptibility of ESBL positive organisms to cefalosporins : None of the five cefalosporins studied exhibited any activity against organisms elaborating ESBL enzymes when used alone; this was uniformly the case against all GNB. In contrast, combinations of cefalosporins with TZB as well as SLB exhibited very high activity against ESBL producers (66% and 5.5% respectively) (Table II); the difference between TZB and SLB combinations was statistically significant. Susceptibility to Cefepime TZB and ceftriaxone TZB were 73% and 59& respectively. In the case of clavulanate combinations, only a negligible two out of 339 ESBL positive strains were susceptible (Table II, Fig. 6). 8 7 6 5 3 2 1 Fig. 6 : E.coli Kleb Pseud Acineto Citro Entero CPT CIT CIS CFS CEC CMC In vitro activity of Cephalosporin BLI combinations against ESBL positive organisms. CPT cefepime / TZB, CIT ceftriaxone / TZB, CIS ceftriaxone / SLB, CMC cefixime / CLV, CEC cefotaxime / CLV, CFS cefoperazone / SLB
Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 213; 57(4) A Comparative In Vitro Study of Cephalosporin/Beta-Lactamase Inhibitor 429 Discussion In the present study, only around 3% of the GNB were susceptible to third and fourth generation cefalosporins. Cefepime was clearly superior to the other four cephalosporins. Higher activity of cefepime was directed mainly against E.coli, Pseudomonas & Acinetobacter. Cefepime being the only fourth generation agent, is resistant to hydrolysis by a majority of the betalactamase subtypes including chromosomally encoded Amp C enzymes produced by Gram negative bacilli (with the exception of ESBLs) (7). In contrast, Amp C enzymes are capable of hydrolyzing third generation cephalosporins, resulting in a decreased susceptibility of the pathogen. Individual Gram negative bacilli are known to be capable of elaborating more than one subtype of betalactamases. What is more revealing is that more than 65% of the gram negative pathogens isolated from biological samples exhibited resistance to the all the five cephalosporins (third & fourth generation) included in the study. Such high degree of resistance could be mainly due to their indiscriminate use, this being a mechanism of defence against these agents. Beta-lactamase production is the main mechanism leading to this form of acquired bacterial resistance (2). Extended Spectrum Beta-Lactamases (ESBL) are plasmid-mediated enzymes capable of hydrolyzing and inactivating a wide variety of beta-lactams including third generation cefalosporins (8). The betalactamase inhibitors are capable of inhibiting a variety of beta-lactamases including ESBL enzymes. A highly effective approach for tackling beta-lactamase induced resistance is the use of beta-lactam/bli combinations (9). The well-established usefulness of BLI combinations with penicillins is suffice to validate this point. The results of this study are consistent with this approach. In the present study, 68% of gm-ve bacilli showed positive results for ESBL production, the incidence is quite similar (68.78%) to an earlier study by Mohanty et al. (9). ESBL production was maximum for Acinetobacter (94%) (Fig. 5). In fact, each and every organism exhibiting resistance to the cefalosporins was invariably an ESBL producer. While only < 3% of the organisms were susceptible to these antibiotics used alone, combining them with BLIs (TZB or SLB) substantially enhanced their activity to more than 6% (Table I, Fig. 3). Enhanced susceptibility was exhibited by all gm-ve bacilli; maximum being E.coli and Klebsiella. TZB combinations were superior to those with SLB in this regard (66.8% to 58%). Many studies have documented the superiority of TZB over SLB and CLAV when combined with piperacillin (9, 1). In one study, TZB showed significantly greater activity than SLB against TEM-1 and SHV-1 enzymes, the most prevalent plasmid mediated enzymes produced by gm ve bacilli (11). The greater activity exhibited by the two TZB combinations over SLB combinations in the current study is in concurrence with the above finding, though the partner antibiotic was different. Among the many variants of the betalactamase superfamily, certain TEM variants (inhibitor resistant TEMs) identified in many Gram negative bacilli including E.coli & Klebsiella are not inhibited by SLB or Clavulanate, but remain susceptible to TZB; so is the case with OXA enzymes (12). Thus the better inhibitory effect of TZB vs clavunate and sulbactam is enough to inhibit a majority of beta-lactamases in a complex betalactamase background (13). Among the TZB combinations, those involving cefepime exhibited significantly higher activity (73% to 59%). This is in accordance with another study done by Smita Sood (14). As stated earlier, this stems from the ability of Cefepime, a fourth generation drug, to withstand hydrolysis by a larger proportion of betalactamases including Amp C enzymes, in contrast to ceftriaxone (15). It is noteworthy that the available B.L.I.s primarily inhibit Class A serine based enzymes (including ESBLs), but have no effect on Class C enzymes (13). Surprisingly, clavulanate, another beta lactamase inhibitor, failed to demonstrate any increase in activity of its partner cephalosporins only Pseudomonas shows some enhanced sensitivity, but this was not statistically significant. This difference
43 Susan/Hariharan/Sonya Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 213; 57(4) with clavulanate combinations is on expected lines, since this is the only inhibitor capable of inducing production of AmpC beta lactamase enzymes by gm negative bacilli this evidently could negate the advantage of inhibition of other enzymes including ESBLs (16, 17). This possibility needs confirmation by studies using techniques for detecting AmpC production this institution lacks this facility. Poor activity for clavulanate combinations compared to TZB and SLB combinations was also observed in a previous studies involving BLI/Penicillin combinations (18, 19). Conclusions A majority (>6%) of the GNB isolated from clinical specimens exhibited resistance to third and fourth generation cefalosporins. Beta-lactamase inhibitors need not always enhance the activity of cefalosporins, when used in combination. Whereas CLV had virtually no effect, TZB and SLB substantially enhanced the activity of cefalosporins. Cefepime/TZB revealed the highest activity against ESBL producing GNB. Further studies are needed in the clinical settings as they can play an important role as good alternatives to carbapenems. The emergence of widespread resistance to third and fourth generation cefalosporins has resulted in poor patient outcomes, increased total health care costs, and increased use of carbapenems. Carbapenems are currently considered the agents of last resort to combat gram negative infections in intensive care units and high risk wards. Cefepime is a fourth generation drug most stable against beta-lactamases like AmpC and OXA. Thus cefepime/tzb covers all three major mechanisms of resistance (ESBL, AmpC & OXA); so it can virtually act as a carbapenem. Acknowledgement We are grateful to the management of MOSC Medical Misssion, Kolenchery,Kochi, for the financial support extended for the study. We also appreciate the technical support offered by the department of Microbiology of MOSC Medical college, Kolenchery. References 1. Bradley JS, Arrieta A. Empiric use of Cefepime in treatment of lower respiratory tract infections in children. Paed Infect Dis J 21; 2: 543 549. 2. Veeraraghavan B. Newer Betalactams & betalactamase inhibitor combinations available in India: Consensus & controversies [Letter to Editor]. Ind J Med Microbiol 211; 29(3): 315 316. 3. Frank U, Mutter J. Comparative in vitro activity of piperacillin, piperacillin - tazobactam & piperaciliin - sulbactam against nosocomial pathogens isolated from intensive care patients. Clin Microbiol Infections 23; 9: 1128 1132. 4. Collee JG, Miles RS, Wan B. Tests for the identification of bacteria. Mackie and McCartney Practical Medical Microbiology, 14 th ed. Churchill Livingstone; 1996; p. 131 15. 5. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. Twentieth informational supplement. CLSI document M1-S2.Wayne PA:CLSI;21. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 6. Livermore DM, Hope R, Mushtaq S, and Warner M. Orthodox and unorthodox clavulanate combinations against extended-spectrum β-lactamase producers. Clin Microbiol Infect. 28; 14 Suppl 1: 189 193. 7. Paterson DL, Bonomo RA. Extended spectrum betalactamases: A clinical update. Clin Microbiol Rev 25; 18: 657 686. 8. Miller LA, Ratnam K, Payne DJ. Beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations in the 21 st century: Current agents and new developments. Curr Opin Pharmacol 21; 1: 451 458. 9. Mohanty S, Singhal R, Sood S, Dhawan B. Comparative in vitro activity of beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations against Gram negative bacteria. Indian J Med Res 25; 122: 425 428. 1. Sader HS, Tosin I, Sejas L, Miranda E. Comparative evaluation of the in vitro activity of three combinations of beta lactams with beta lactamase inhibitors : piperacillin/ tazobactam, ticarcillin/clavulanate and ampicillin/sulbactam. Braz J Infect Dis 2; 4: 22 28. 11. Payne DJ, Cramp R, Winstanley, Knowles. Comparative activities of betactamase inhibitors against betalactamases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994 April; 38: 767 772. 12. Jones RN. Important and emerging beta-lactamase Cmediated resistances in hospital-based pathogens: the AmpC enzymes. Diag Microbiol Infect Dis 1998; 31: 461 466. 13. Sarah M, Drawz, Robert A, Bonomo. Three Decades of β-lactamase Inhibitors. Cl Microbiol Rev 21; 23(1): 16 21. 14. Smita Sood. Comparative Evaluation of the in-vitro Activity of Six β-lactam/β-lactamase Inhibitor Combinations against Gram Negative Bacilli. J Clin Diagn Res 213 February; 7(2): 224 228.
Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 213; 57(4) A Comparative In Vitro Study of Cephalosporin/Beta-Lactamase Inhibitor 431 15. Yahav D, Paul M, Fraser A, Sarid N. Efficacy and safety if cefepime : A systematic revies and meta analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 27; 7: 338 348. 16. Lister PD, Gardner VM, and Sanders CC. Clavulanate induce expression of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa AmpC cephalosporinase at physiologically relevant concentrations and antagonizes the antibacterial activity of ticarcillin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43: 882 889. 17. Livermore DM, Akova M, Wu PJ, Yang YJ. Clavulanate & Betalactamase induction. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989; 24 Suppl B: 23 33. 18. Mulla S, Charan J, Panvala T. Antibiotic sensitivity of enterobacteriaceae at a tertiary care centre in India. Chron Young Sci 211; 2: 214 218. 19. Anuradha K, Sailaja VV, Umabala P. Sensitivity pattern of Gm negative bacilli to three beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations using the automated API system. Ind J Med Microbiol 27; 25(3): 23 28.